Alaska Cops fighting for right to have sex with prostitutes during stings

[dead0man]

unfunkingbelievable

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[KingSweden]

Haha no way this is insane

[NeverAgain]

The real question here is, are they racist for not choose black prostitutes?

[Santander]

They have a point.

[dead0man]

They have a point.

that they should be able to grope victims of sex trafficking before arresting them?

[Santander]

They have a point.

that they should be able to grope victims of sex trafficking before arresting them?

That this basically gives prostitutes (the vast majority of whom, particularly in Alaska, are not victims of sex trafficking) an "are you a cop" shield against law enforcement.

[ApatheticAustrian]

From feel a cop to cop a feel, both sides do it.

[SteveRogers]

They have a point.

No they don't. Going undercover doesn't give a police officer authority to actually break the law.

[Santander]

They have a point.

No they don't. Going undercover doesn't give a police officer authority to actually break the law.

It depends on jurisdiction and organization, but there is some degree of authorized criminality when it comes to undercover law enforcement operations. There is a line - they don't commit murder, for example, but undercover police routinely buy/sell drugs, launder money, forge documents, etc. to establish and maintain cover.

[Person Man]

They have a point.

No they don't. Going undercover doesn't give a police officer authority to actually break the law.

It depends on jurisdiction and organization, but there is some degree of authorized criminality when it comes to undercover law enforcement operations. There is a line - they don't commit murder, for example, but undercover police routinely buy/sell drugs, launder money, forge documents, etc. to establish and maintain cover.

An absolutionist is arguing a relativist argument. That's how I know its a bad idea.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Surely they would have to arrest themselves as johns though?

[Brittain33]

They have a point.

Consider the potential for abuse by giving police this power.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Thanks, but no thanks.  Cops get away with crossing the line enough already. 

[Santander]

They have a point.

Consider the potential for abuse by giving police this power.

All police powers have potential for abuse. Some things just come with the territory.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

They have a point.

Consider the potential for abuse by giving police this power.

All police powers have potential for abuse. Some things just come with the territory.

We need not encourage abuse with this garbage.

[dead0man]

They have a point.

that they should be able to grope victims of sex trafficking before arresting them?

That this basically gives prostitutes (the vast majority of whom, particularly in Alaska, are not victims of sex trafficking) an "are you a cop" shield against law enforcement.

As the cop said...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not going to say "they just want to rape sex traficing victims", that's silly.  What they want is to make sure none of their sh**t head cops will get prosecuted if they get caught plowing a hooker right before arresting her.  Sure, better than raping a rape victim, still complete BS though and it shouldn't be encouraged or defended.


It's like cops and cop unions fighting against more body cams.  WTF are they thinking?  Good cops should want MORE cameras around (cameras favor the cops side of the story the vast majority of the time) and they shouldn't want to have sex with prostitutes before arresting them for prostitution.




(of course prostitution shouldn't be illegal in the first place, just another reason to put people and cops at odds with each other)

[fhtagn]

They have a point.

No they don't. Going undercover doesn't give a police officer authority to actually break the law.

It depends on jurisdiction and organization, but there is some degree of authorized criminality when it comes to undercover law enforcement operations. There is a line - they don't commit murder, for example, but undercover police routinely buy/sell drugs, launder money, forge documents, etc. to establish and maintain cover.

I never thought I would actually agree with Santander on something.

[Badger]

Yeah. I am highly conflicted here. In fact prostitutes do try to sniff out undercover cops by having them do such things. Though I'm trying to figure out if a cop touching a breast of a woman at her invitation is a crime. That's consent, and I don't think one can argue it was consent induced by fraud because the person was a cop. A person's profession giving way to fraud doesn't mean that if a woman tells a guy who claims to be a doctor to touch her breast is now sexual assault when it turns out he's just a janitor. I'm simplifying obviously, but I'm not sure what's at stake here.

[Santander]

It's like cops and cop unions fighting against more body cams.  WTF are they thinking?  Good cops should want MORE cameras around (cameras favor the cops side of the story the vast majority of the time) and they shouldn't want to have sex with prostitutes before arresting them for prostitution.

In professions where you have to work in pairs with a partner, the job becomes infinitely more difficult if you have cameras recording "locker room talk". I understand their apprehension.

[SteveRogers]

They have a point.

No they don't. Going undercover doesn't give a police officer authority to actually break the law.

It depends on jurisdiction and organization, but there is some degree of authorized criminality when it comes to undercover law enforcement operations. There is a line - they don't commit murder, for example, but undercover police routinely buy/sell drugs, launder money, forge documents, etc. to establish and maintain cover.

What you're describing does happen. Occasionally undercover cops have to take or otherwise possess illegal drugs. But there's not actually any law explicitly protecting their right to do so. Rather, for obvious reasons a prosecutor usually simply isn't going to prosecute an undercover cop who gets caught doing drugs. But in real life (as opposed to what is shown in the movies), most competent undercover operations are carefully planned to avoid putting the officers in the situations you describe. And if an undercover does actually end up, say, snorting cocaine, they report it to their supervisor and in all likelihood get pulled from the field. So if an officer is actually engaging in intercourse with a prostitute as part of their sting, then someone is doing their job terribly wrong.

[Santander]

But in real life (as opposed to what is shown in the movies), most competent undercover operations are carefully planned to avoid putting the officers in the situations you describe.

Popular culture is what leads people to completely misunderstand entrapment and believe that undercover police are not allowed to lie, mislead, or engage in apparently criminal activity. Deception is an essential tool of undercover police, and we should not infringe upon it in any way. I never said authorized criminality was a right, but it is a tool that is codified and regulated in the internal procedures of law enforcement agencies.

[SteveRogers]

But in real life (as opposed to what is shown in the movies), most competent undercover operations are carefully planned to avoid putting the officers in the situations you describe.

Popular culture is what leads people to completely misunderstand entrapment and believe that undercover police are not allowed to lie, mislead, or engage in apparently criminal activity. Deception is an essential tool of undercover police, and we should not infringe upon it in any way. I never said authorized criminality was a right, but it is a tool that is codified and regulated in the internal procedures of law enforcement agencies.

But these cops are lobbying against these bills because they feel they should have a legal right to engage in illegal prostitution. It's funny that you talk about deception. Real undercover officers are trained in how to pretend to snort cocaine precisely because actually doing so would be a crime. I agree that prosecutorial discretion is appropriate where undercover operations enter gray areas. But what these cops here are asking for instead is a legal shield from prosecution when they cross the line.

[All Along The Watchtower]

[Technocracy Timmy]

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)